In a world where not what you say, but how you say it, is enough to cause a scandal, the art of talking without saying anything is mandatory for any politician.

That's true if you subscribe to the notion that elected politician jobs are there to win popularity contests. If you imagine that politicians jobs is, well, policies, then it is what they do that matters, not what they say, or how they say it.

In a world where not what you say, but how you say it, is enough to cause a scandal, the art of talking without saying anything is mandatory for any politician.

That's true if you subscribe to the notion that elected politician jobs are there to win popularity contests. If you imagine that politicians jobs is, well, policies, then it is what they do that matters, not what they say, or how they say it.

But I do subscribe to that notion.
It astonishes me how many people think that politicians have to be competent in certain technical areas to become head of a ministry. They don't. Politicians are people persons. All of them.
They set the general direction like "we should do something about X", listen to competent officials (which they hopefully gathered around them) and then explain the benefits of a fiscal union or net neutrality to joe and his family.
And the last point is the important one, because it is the measurement of how well they did their job.

In a world where not what you say, but how you say it, is enough to cause a scandal, the art of talking without saying anything is mandatory for any politician.

That's true if you subscribe to the notion that elected politician jobs are there to win popularity contests. If you imagine that politicians jobs is, well, policies, then it is what they do that matters, not what they say, or how they say it.

But I do subscribe to that notion.
It astonishes me how many people think that politicians have to be competent in certain technical areas to become head of a ministry. They don't. Politicians are people persons. All of them.
They set the general direction like "we should do something about X", listen to competent officials (which they hopefully gathered around them) and then explain the benefits of a fiscal union or net neutrality to joe and his family.
And the last point is the important one, because it is the measurement of how well they did their job.

Yes, of course, but then you have the problem that democracy is bullshit.

If you are voting for a politician that isn't a policy maker but just a front, what are you actually voting for? Your voting has no effect whatsoever.

I'm glad we have come together to the same conclusion, albeit by different paths.

Yes, of course, but then you have the problem that democracy is bullshit.

It is!

Then again Churchill has a famous quote about that.

Prenj wrote:

If you are voting for a politician that isn't a policy maker but just a front, what are you actually voting for? Your voting has no effect whatsoever.

You are voting for the party that chose the politician that chose the officials that choose the policies.
It is a concession to the fact that, while it is a good idea to ask everybody on matters that concern everybody, most people are actually clueless. Of course even if all they ever did was read a book about that topic (if at all) many people will want to voice their opinion anyway.
In summary, a parliamentary democracy keeps the power away from those that want it and lets people decide about the general direction of the decisions made without considering ideas that are just too mindboggingly stupid.

Prenj wrote:

I'm glad we have come together to the same conclusion, albeit by different paths.

In summary, a parliamentary democracy keeps the power away from those that want it and lets people decide about the general direction of the decisions made without considering ideas that are just too mindboggingly stupid.

So how exactly does it keep power from those who want it, when those in power clearly want it? Were they forced to be politicians? And how does it let people decide about general direction, really? Like people all of a sudden went suicidal and decided that politicians should bail out banksters with their tax money, because banksters gambled away their retirement funds?

I think you just bought into the con.

Dr.Willy wrote:

Prenj wrote:

I'm glad we have come together to the same conclusion, albeit by different paths.

So how exactly does it keep power from those who want it, when those in power clearly want it? Were they forced to be politicians?

They are still put to power, they can't seize it.

Prenj wrote:

And how does it let people decide about general direction, really? Like people all of a sudden went suicidal and decided that politicians should bail out banksters with their tax money, because banksters gambled away their retirement funds?

No they went suicidential when they elected the politicians that would eventually make that decision.
I mean, I'm pretty sure there were politicians who were opposed to that. Why were they in the minority?

So how exactly does it keep power from those who want it, when those in power clearly want it? Were they forced to be politicians?

They are still put to power, they can't seize it.

Ever considered that they are not in power once they are in power individually, but that they are in power as they are indefinitely members of political class? Wouldn't you agree that when someone exits high-school, and enter worlds of politics without prior life experience, and live priviledged life for the rest of their life, that we're talking about power that ordinary citizenry doesn't have?

Dr.Willy wrote:

Prenj wrote:

And how does it let people decide about general direction, really? Like people all of a sudden went suicidal and decided that politicians should bail out banksters with their tax money, because banksters gambled away their retirement funds?

No they went suicidential when they elected the politicians that would eventually make that decision.
I mean, I'm pretty sure there were politicians who were opposed to that. Why were they in the minority?

Ever considered that they are not in power once they are in power individually, but that they are in power as they are indefinitely members of political class? Wouldn't you agree that when someone exits high-school, and enter worlds of politics without prior life experience, and live priviledged life for the rest of their life, that we're talking about power that ordinary citizenry doesn't have?

Yes, but democracy is a mob rule, and IQ distribution curve tells us that majority of people will swallow propaganda with hair and everything.

Prenj wrote:

And how does it let people decide about general direction, really? Like people all of a sudden went suicidal and decided that politicians should bail out banksters with their tax money, because banksters gambled away their retirement funds?

Yes, but democracy is a mob rule, and IQ distribution curve tells us that majority of people will swallow propaganda with hair and everything.

Prenj wrote:

And how does it let people decide about general direction, really? Like people all of a sudden went suicidal and decided that politicians should bail out banksters with their tax money, because banksters gambled away their retirement funds?

Just that.

Well here is the kicker. If the mob had unbiased information, they may made more correct choice. Not for certain, because truly multiple choice may in fact confuse them.

So who is not presenting unbiased information. Isn't that what journalism is all about? What power changed the paradigm of journalism into cheerleading? So they do have power, and they seek it.

The fact that its too much to handle psychologically that one is getting fucked up the read end, so one pretends that it lives in some la-la land is well known phenomena in psychology.